Singer Cool on Global Warming
James
Issue: 4/27/04
Picture Profile
Singer Cool on Global Warming
By Stephen Goode
Fred Singer established the Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) in
1990 after becoming fed up with what he calls "the distorted science"
surrounding the question of atmospheric ozone depletion. Singer is a
scientist. His undergraduate degree is in electrical engineering and he has
a doctorate in physics from Princeton University. He has spent a lifetime in
scientific research and development. So it is not surprising that bad
science gets Singer excited and arouses his concern.
The ozone debate has receded and no longer is in the headlines. "It may come
back, who knows?" Singer tells Insight. His chief interest now, when it
comes to distorted science, is global warming.
Two things concern Singer about global warming. First is the questionable
science that says global warming is taking place and it's a bad thing. The
second is that the global-warming people argue government and society must
now greatly expand the government's authority to enforce policies that will
put an end to global warming or at least hold it in check.
"There are, of course, many areas in science that are disputed, but because
they have no policy significance, they don't really make the papers," Singer
says. "As far as policy significance goes, global warming is still the top
one." That's because the policies the global-warming folks advocate are
often draconian, even though there's no solid evidence, according to Singer,
that global warming is taking place or that it will be a disaster for
mankind.
Singer has held prestigious scientific positions, such as director of the
Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of Maryland and
distinguished research professor at the Institute for Space Science and
Technology in Gainesville, Fla. He's also published widely both in
scientific journals and in the popular press. And Singer's list of
scientific accomplishments is impressive.
In 1956, for example, he designed the sensing instruments for the MOUSE
(Minimal Orbital Unmanned Satellite), including the first instrument for
measuring stratospheric ozone.
Among Singer's other achievements are the design of the high-altitude
FARSIDE rocket to search for geomagnetically trapped radiation. Currently,
in addition to being SEPP's president, he is a distinguished research
professor at George Mason University and professor emeritus of environmental
science at the University of Virginia.
Insight: When did you first get interested in the question of global warming
as an example of bad science?
Fred Singer: My interest in the global-warming scare began about 1988 with
the testimony of Jim Hansen (then head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space
Studies) before Sen. Al Gore in a Senate hearing. I looked at his testimony
and discovered some holes in it. I published a piece in the Wall Street
Journal pointing out the weak points in the argument.
Q: What are some of the weak points about the global-warming argument?
A: The fact that they don't properly take into account the effects of clouds
in the atmosphere. Clouds will cool the climate rather than warm the
climate. When you try to warm the ocean, I argued - and the argument is
still sound - you evaporate more water and create more clouds and this
reduces the amount of solar radiation. What you have is a kind of negative
feedback which keeps the temperature from rising very much.
Q: Why is the disagreement so wide between those who see global warming
happening right now and those who don't? What is a nonscientist to make of
such a disagreement?
A: Let me explain the origin of this scientific disagreement. There are two
kinds of scientists. Let's assume for the moment that both of them are
honest. In the first group there are quite a few who argue as follows:
They say "Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing." It is. Second,
they say, "Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas." It is. They then say,
"Because carbon dioxide is on the increase and it is a greenhouse gas,
therefore the climate must be warming. The [mathematical] models support
this assumption," they say, "and the models show the climate is warming;
therefore evidence that goes contrary to this we will ignore. We will only
look at supporting evidence."
That's how they are. The other group, of which I am one, says, "This is all
true, but as far as we can tell, the climate is not warming as it should be
if the greenhouse theory is correct. In fact, the warming is a great deal
less than what the models predict. Therefore, something is wrong with the
models."
I belong to the latter school, as I say, and what we do is analyze the data.
Just now we have a new result. It's been known for a long time that the
weather satellites do not show any warming, but the first group tends to
neglect this information. They argue that the weather satellites have only
been around for 25 years and that's too short a time to tell. It's a
specious argument. Or they say there's something wrong with the weather
satellites, though they haven't been able to show that there's anything at
all wrong with them.
So now we find that not only the weather satellites but also weather
balloons, which measure temperature in a completely different way than the
satellites, give the same results as the satellites.
Q: The data collected by weather balloons also say there is no global
warming?
A: Yes. So now we have a situation in which most of the evidence is showing
there is essentially no warming. The first group of scientists is aware of
this information, but they tend to ignore it. They say, "Something's wrong
with it because it doesn't support our hypothesis, so we will push it
aside."
The second group of scientists, of which I am one, says, "There must be
something wrong with the first group's models because they don't agree with
what we observe and measure." So what you have is one group of people who
believe in models or theory and the other group who believe in what they are
measuring in the atmosphere! That's the major science issue in a nutshell.
Q: These two groups of scientists also have vast differences when it comes
to policies that should be developed to deal with the increase of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere, don't they?
A: Well, yes. As far as policy goes, the first group of scientists says,
"Even if we don't see any warming, nonetheless, assuming the theory is
right, there should be a warming given the increase in carbon dioxide. And
we had better do something about it!" It's called the precautionary
principle. As the culture puts it, "Better safe than sorry."
But the first group of scientists does not ask, "How much does it cost to be
safe?" They don't ask - and this is very important - "What does safety
mean?"
Put another way, when you buy an insurance policy you look at the cost of
the premium and you look at the risk. You don't buy insurance policies
against being hit by a meteorite. The risk is very small.
Q: Won't one of the arguments the first group of scientists put forth be
that we should slow our use of energy, conserve it, and in the process save
the environment?
A: If the policy were cost-free, I would say, "Sure, why not?" So, for
example, if people say, "Well, we should conserve energy," I would say,
"Yes, of course. It's cost-free and conservation not only saves you energy,
it even saves you money, and for that reason you should be doing it
irrespective of a warming."
But I would add, "When you say, 'We have to do away with fossil fuels and
use wind energy exclusively or solar energy,' well ... I would then say,
'That's very expensive and it doesn't even work very well.'" So there is a
basic policy difference between the two groups of scientists. The first
group believes in the precautionary principle. And the second group, to use
another slogan from the culture, believes, "Look before you leap!"
Q: "Look before you leap" means let's not adopt large government programs to
deal with a problem that the evidence says isn't taking place but which
theory and mathematical models say must take place?
A: If we don't see anything happening despite the fact that carbon dioxide
is increasing, then maybe something else is happening and the effect of the
increase will be minimal. I won't say an effect won't be there, but that
maybe it is minimal - or not even enough to be detectable. If it's not
detectable, it means it probably can't do you any harm.
There's an additional argument, which is this: Supposing it did warm up, is
that good or bad? You cannot automatically assume it is bad, because we've
had warming in the past and coolings. Climate is always changing. Every time
the climate has been warm, it's been good for mankind, and every time it has
been cold it has been bad.
Q: How is a nonscientist to deal with these questions? How can a layperson
look at the science and decide for himself or herself which side to be
convinced by?
A: I think that the overall way of handling it is to look at the indices of
human well-being. One is longevity. If people are now living longer and
healthier lives than they used to - and this is certainly true - then things
must be improving. So you have to conclude that air pollution, climate
change, radiation, chemicals and whatever else you want to think about
within the environment are not doing us in to a greater degree than before.
That's one way of looking at it. The other, more detailed, is to look at the
individual items that are being held up as dangerous. Again, for example,
air pollution. Air pollution assuredly can be unhealthy. In present-day
China it is horrible, truly awful. But according to the EPA [Environmental
Protection Agency], air pollution virtually has disappeared from the United
States. Today we have fewer particulates, less sulphur, fewer ozone events
and so on. The air is cleaner and better, according to the EPA. I don't
question that. It's EPA's data, and, when you think about it, it would be in
EPA's interest to show that this is not so. It would be in the EPA's
interest to show that air pollution is a serious problem and maybe even
getting worse. But in fact, the outdoor air has become so clean that
probably the greater health hazard is indoor air. Most of us spend 80
percent or so of our lives indoors, so in a sense outdoor air pollution is
almost irrelevant.
Q: Do we politicize science now more than we used to?
A: I think yes. I remember when Earth Day first was proclaimed in 1970;
that's when the heavy politicizing started.
Q: What's your impression of science education in this country?
A: It goes up and down. It peaked after Sputnik in science and engineering,
and it's been slowly going down. We're lagging behind, as I read it, many
other countries. We're well down in the middle, lagging behind India and
Japan.
Q: Does good science education help make people immune to being convinced by
bad science, and isn't solid science training essential?
A: That's true. In fact, when I speak out about climate change and global
warming, the greatest amount of support I get is from people who know
something about the subject. They don't have to be specialists, but they
have to be able to read and absorb data when I show them a graph - to
understand what it means.
Q: What about the Bush administration's space program? Should we be getting
back to, and deeper into, space exploration?
A: Should we be spending money at all on science? On astronomy and other
scientific fields that have no practical payoff in the short term? Black
holes are interesting. Discovering new planets is interesting. But where's
the practical payoff for those from whom the money is taken to pay for such
programs?
Even so, let us assume that space exploration is important. Then the
question is, how best to do it. I have always pointed out that some things
are more important than others, which means some things are of less
importance.
Among the things that are less important is putting a base on the moon. I
don't see any good reason to put a permanent base on the moon. It's not just
the expense involved, but the fact that a moon base would delay or make
impossible other things we should be doing.
Supposing you get a half-dozen people to sit in an enclosure on the moon, so
what? To me, a base on the moon is just another space station, and we've
already proved that people can survive in space. We've known that for a long
time, so we're not learning anything new.
Q: What could we be doing that would be more beneficial to science?
A: We should be going to Mars. Not with a base, but a short exploratory
visit. Not to the surface of Mars, because that's difficult and costly and
would take forever. But to Demos, a moon of Mars, and from that moon conduct
an unmanned exploration of the planet.
Q: What do you think of the Bush administration's attitude toward science in
general?
A: The administration is conducting continually a climate-research program
to the tune of about $2 billion a year. If I were doing it, I would spend a
lot less and try to focus on what the really important issues are. But it's
turned out to be a great support project for scientists, not only for
physical scientists but also for the social scientists who study the social,
philosophical and theological implications of climate change. Everyone is
getting in on this because they can get money from the program.
Q: Any other problems with the administration when it comes to science?
A: The Bush administration has quite properly said we're not going to go
along with the Kyoto Protocol. They're not going to do all those crazy
things demanded by the protocol, such as rationing energy and making energy
even more expensive and causing ourselves economic harm. But, on the other
hand, the administration is acting like this is a real problem, as though
the problems the protocol was supposed to address are real. So they have a
great big research program on hydrogen cars and so on, or sequestering
carbon dioxide.
It makes no sense. It tells people, "This is a problem after all." Why would
you want to sequester carbon dioxide? To do so implies carbon dioxide is
bad - when it's not bad, it's good. We should have more carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere. It's good for plants. It makes them grow faster.
Q: What are your views on energy?
A: The best we have now are coal, oil, and gas - and these will be with us a
long time, long enough until they become too expensive, meaning scarce. But
we have other sources of energy. We have nuclear energy, for example,
nuclear energy which works. One of the real curious things about this whole
debate is that the people who are concerned about global climate change are
also the people who are opposed to advancing nuclear energy. The very same
people.
Never mind that nuclear energy would do the job that needs to be done. It
would produce energy without any carbon dioxide, so it's the obvious answer.
But they don't want anything to do with it, so you see they can't be
serious. It shows how ideological they are.
Stephen Goode is a senior writer for Insight.
email the author
Eric Swanson
>
>Insight on the News - Features
>Issue: 4/27/04
>
>
>Picture Profile
>Singer Cool on Global Warming
>By Stephen Goode
>
>Fred Singer established the Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) in
>1990 after becoming fed up with what he calls "the distorted science"
>surrounding the question of atmospheric ozone depletion. Singer is a
>scientist. His undergraduate degree is in electrical engineering and he has
>a doctorate in physics from Princeton University. He has spent a lifetime in
>scientific research and development. So it is not surprising that bad
>science gets Singer excited and arouses his concern.
>Insight: When did you first get interested in the question of global warming
>as an example of bad science?
>
>Fred Singer: My interest in the global-warming scare began about 1988 with
>the testimony of Jim Hansen (then head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space
>Studies) before Sen. Al Gore in a Senate hearing. I looked at his testimony
>and discovered some holes in it. I published a piece in the Wall Street
>Journal pointing out the weak points in the argument.
>
>Q: What are some of the weak points about the global-warming argument?
>
>A: The fact that they don't properly take into account the effects of clouds
>in the atmosphere. Clouds will cool the climate rather than warm the
>climate. When you try to warm the ocean, I argued - and the argument is
>still sound - you evaporate more water and create more clouds and this
>reduces the amount of solar radiation. What you have is a kind of negative
>feedback which keeps the temperature from rising very much.
At the time of Hansen's JGR paper and subsequent presentation in 1998, the
net effects of increased cloud cover was not well known. For example, low
clouds cool, while high clouds warm by blocking outgoing IR. It's taken
quite a while to even get the sign correct for the overall forcing.
False.
It's true that the first few versions of Spencer & Christy's MSU analysis
showed little or no warming. That's because the warming found in the NH
was offset by the cooling seen in the SH and tropics. The latest version
does, however, show a warming trend overall, especially for the mid and high
latitudes of the NH. There are now 3 other sets of data derived from the
MSU/AMSU instruments, all showing greater warming than the S & C result.
It's really difficult to see Singer's repeated incorrect statement without
concluding that he is either completely out of touch or lying.
>So now we find that not only the weather satellites but also weather
>balloons, which measure temperature in a completely different way than the
>satellites, give the same results as the satellites.
>
>Q: The data collected by weather balloons also say there is no global
>warming?
>
>A: Yes. So now we have a situation in which most of the evidence is showing
>there is essentially no warming. The first group of scientists is aware of
>this information, but they tend to ignore it. They say, "Something's wrong
>with it because it doesn't support our hypothesis, so we will push it
>aside."
>
>The second group of scientists, of which I am one, says, "There must be
>something wrong with the first group's models because they don't agree with
>what we observe and measure." So what you have is one group of people who
>believe in models or theory and the other group who believe in what they are
>measuring in the atmosphere! That's the major science issue in a nutshell.
I guess I'm in the first group, as I've shown that S & C's results may be in
error due to contamination from sea-ice. More recently, I've looked at the
data from S & C's MSU Middle Troposphere calculation and see almost no
obvious evidence of surface contamination. I told Singer that about too.
As for the sonde data, consider this:
J. K. Angell (2003), Effect of Exclusion of Anomalous Tropical Stations
on Temperatur Trends from a 63-Station Radiosonde Network, and Comparison
with Other Analyses, J. Climate 16, No. 13, pp. 2288-2295.
" In the Tropics the exclusion of the 9 anomalous stations from the 63-
station network for 1958-2000 results in a warming of the 300-100 mb layer
rather than a cooling, a doubling of the warming of the 850-300 mb layer
to a value of 0.13 K decade1, and a greater warming at 850-300 mb than
at the surface. The global changes in trend are smaller, but include a
change to the same warming of the surface and the 850-300 mb layer
during 1958-2000. ........
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ian St. John
"James" <jra...@dcr.net> wrote in message
news:6rwhc.32644$pk5....@fe03.usenetserver.com...
> Insight on the News - Features
> Issue: 4/27/04
>
>
> Picture Profile
> Singer Cool on Global Warming
Not an issue. Singer has no current credentials in climatology ( he did do
some development of an ozone reading instrument but that was back in the
60's ). His current position is political lobbying and has been for decades.
> Fred Singer established the Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
in
> 1990
Which is a political lobby that he can run his 'own' way.
> after becoming fed up with what he calls "the distorted science"
> surrounding the question of atmospheric ozone depletion. Singer is a
> scientist.
Was. His current activities make him a political scientist.
<snip>
> The ozone debate has receded and no longer is in the headlines. "It may
come
> back, who knows?" Singer tells Insight. His chief interest now, when it
> comes to distorted science, is global warming.
Being uninformed on the state of ozone depletion is not a recommendation.
Expecially as ozone depletion is something we ARE DOING something about.
>
> Two things concern Singer about global warming. First is the questionable
> science that says global warming is taking place and it's a bad thing.
Being uniformed on global warming is no better than being uninformed on
ozone depletion. That is what you get when you stop doing science.
> The
> second is that the global-warming people argue government and society must
> now greatly expand the government's authority to enforce policies that
will
> put an end to global warming or at least hold it in check.
Now we see the political lobbyist. It is even funnier since action on the
science has put a check to zozone depletion as a problem ( see montreal
protocol ) while he is trying to block identical action on global warming!
<more crap deleted>
Titan Point
crap deleted.
David Ball
No, it wasn't. You managed to post anyway, Titan.
Lloyd Parker
"James" <jra...@dcr.net> wrote:
>Insight on the News - Features
>Issue: 4/27/04
>
>
>Picture Profile
>Singer Cool on Global Warming
>By Stephen Goode
>
>Fred Singer established the Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) in
>1990 after becoming fed up with what he calls "the distorted science"
>surrounding the question of atmospheric ozone depletion. Singer is a
>scientist.
Translation: Scientific journals wouldn't publish his version of
creationism, so he founded his own lobbying group.
> His undergraduate degree is in electrical engineering and he has
>a doctorate in physics from Princeton University. He has spent a lifetime in
>scientific research and development. So it is not surprising that bad
>science gets Singer excited and arouses his concern.
Neither of which would seem to relate to atmospheric chemistry.
>
>The ozone debate has receded and no longer is in the headlines. "It may come
>back, who knows?" Singer tells Insight.
Whoa. It's receded because we know beyond a shadow of a doubt what caused
it, and we're fixing it. Is Singer admitting he was wrong?
> His chief interest now, when it
>comes to distorted science, is global warming.
>
>Two things concern Singer about global warming. First is the questionable
>science that says global warming is taking place and it's a bad thing.
Data says it's taking place. Data exists; it's not tried to science per se.
>The
>second is that the global-warming people argue government and society must
>now greatly expand the government's authority to enforce policies that will
>put an end to global warming or at least hold it in check.
I see. Singer's objection is political, and he finally admits it.
>
>"There are, of course, many areas in science that are disputed, but because
>they have no policy significance, they don't really make the papers," Singer
>says. "As far as policy significance goes, global warming is still the top
>one." That's because the policies the global-warming folks advocate are
>often draconian, even though there's no solid evidence, according to Singer,
>that global warming is taking place or that it will be a disaster for
>mankind.
>
Creationism, pure and simple.
>Singer has held prestigious scientific positions, such as director of the
>Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of Maryland and
>distinguished research professor at the Institute for Space Science and
>Technology in Gainesville, Fla. He's also published widely both in
>scientific journals and in the popular press. And Singer's list of
>scientific accomplishments is impressive.
So was Linus Paulding, but his mega doses of vitamin C were quackery.
>
>In 1956, for example, he designed the sensing instruments for the MOUSE
>(Minimal Orbital Unmanned Satellite), including the first instrument for
>measuring stratospheric ozone.
>
>Among Singer's other achievements are the design of the high-altitude
>FARSIDE rocket to search for geomagnetically trapped radiation. Currently,
>in addition to being SEPP's president, he is a distinguished research
>professor at George Mason University and professor emeritus of environmental
>science at the University of Virginia.
>
>Insight: When did you first get interested in the question of global warming
>as an example of bad science?
>
>Fred Singer: My interest in the global-warming scare began about 1988 with
>the testimony of Jim Hansen (then head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space
>Studies) before Sen. Al Gore in a Senate hearing. I looked at his testimony
>and discovered some holes in it. I published a piece in the Wall Street
>Journal pointing out the weak points in the argument.
So publishing in a right-wing newspaper is somehow a scientific
accomplishment?
>
>Q: What are some of the weak points about the global-warming argument?
>
>A: The fact that they don't properly take into account the effects of clouds
>in the atmosphere. Clouds will cool the climate rather than warm the
>climate. When you try to warm the ocean, I argued - and the argument is
>still sound - you evaporate more water and create more clouds and this
>reduces the amount of solar radiation. What you have is a kind of negative
>feedback which keeps the temperature from rising very much.
>
> Q: Why is the disagreement so wide between those who see global warming
>happening right now and those who don't? What is a nonscientist to make of
>such a disagreement?
>
>A: Let me explain the origin of this scientific disagreement. There are two
>kinds of scientists. Let's assume for the moment that both of them are
>honest. In the first group there are quite a few who argue as follows:
>
>They say "Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing." It is. Second,
>they say, "Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas." It is. They then say,
>"Because carbon dioxide is on the increase and it is a greenhouse gas,
>therefore the climate must be warming. The [mathematical] models support
>this assumption," they say, "and the models show the climate is warming;
>therefore evidence that goes contrary to this we will ignore. We will only
>look at supporting evidence."
>
>That's how they are. The other group, of which I am one, says, "This is all
>true, but as far as we can tell, the climate is not warming as it should be
>if the greenhouse theory is correct.
If Singer is incapable of telling this, perhaps he should subscribe to real
scientific journals at his institute.
>In fact, the warming is a great deal
>less than what the models predict. Therefore, something is wrong with the
>models."
>
>I belong to the latter school, as I say, and what we do is analyze the data.
>Just now we have a new result. It's been known for a long time that the
>weather satellites do not show any warming,
5 years ago; now they do. Perhaps Singer let his scientific journal
subscriptions expire?
> but the first group tends to
>neglect this information. They argue that the weather satellites have only
>been around for 25 years and that's too short a time to tell. It's a
>specious argument. Or they say there's something wrong with the weather
>satellites, though they haven't been able to show that there's anything at
>all wrong with them.
>
>So now we find that not only the weather satellites but also weather
>balloons, which measure temperature in a completely different way than the
>satellites, give the same results as the satellites.
Yes, they show warming.
Straw man argument. No scientist is saying this.
> well ... I would then say,
>'That's very expensive and it doesn't even work very well.'" So there is a
>basic policy difference between the two groups of scientists. The first
>group believes in the precautionary principle. And the second group, to use
>another slogan from the culture, believes, "Look before you leap!"
>
>Q: "Look before you leap" means let's not adopt large government programs to
>deal with a problem that the evidence says isn't taking place but which
>theory and mathematical models say must take place?
>
>A: If we don't see anything happening despite the fact that carbon dioxide
>is increasing, then maybe something else is happening and the effect of the
>increase will be minimal. I won't say an effect won't be there, but that
>maybe it is minimal - or not even enough to be detectable. If it's not
>detectable, it means it probably can't do you any harm.
>
>There's an additional argument, which is this: Supposing it did warm up, is
>that good or bad? You cannot automatically assume it is bad, because we've
>had warming in the past and coolings. Climate is always changing. Every time
>the climate has been warm, it's been good for mankind, and every time it has
>been cold it has been bad.
Climate has not changed this fast, nor has it warmed as much as it will
during human civilization.
>
>Q: How is a nonscientist to deal with these questions? How can a layperson
>look at the science and decide for himself or herself which side to be
>convinced by?
>
>A: I think that the overall way of handling it is to look at the indices of
>human well-being.
I'd say look at scientific data and scientific theories, much as you'd look
at medical data and medical theories to fight AIDS, but that's not going to
give the political answers Singer wants.
>One is longevity. If people are now living longer and
>healthier lives than they used to - and this is certainly true - then things
>must be improving. So you have to conclude that air pollution, climate
>change, radiation, chemicals and whatever else you want to think about
>within the environment are not doing us in to a greater degree than before.
>
>That's one way of looking at it. The other, more detailed, is to look at the
>individual items that are being held up as dangerous. Again, for example,
>air pollution. Air pollution assuredly can be unhealthy. In present-day
>China it is horrible, truly awful. But according to the EPA [Environmental
>Protection Agency], air pollution virtually has disappeared from the United
>States. Today we have fewer particulates, less sulphur, fewer ozone events
>and so on. The air is cleaner and better, according to the EPA. I don't
>question that. It's EPA's data, and, when you think about it, it would be in
>
>EPA's interest to show that this is not so. It would be in the EPA's
>interest to show that air pollution is a serious problem and maybe even
>getting worse. But in fact, the outdoor air has become so clean that
>probably the greater health hazard is indoor air. Most of us spend 80
>percent or so of our lives indoors, so in a sense outdoor air pollution is
>almost irrelevant.
>
>Q: Do we politicize science now more than we used to?
>
>A: I think yes. I remember when Earth Day first was proclaimed in 1970;
>that's when the heavy politicizing started.
Yes, because caring for the environment is SOOO political!
Alastair McDonald
"Eric Swanson" <swanson@nospam_on.net> wrote in message
news:c666mn$a9ns$1...@news3.infoave.net...
> > Q: Why is the disagreement so wide between those who see global warming
No it is true.
> It's true that the first few versions of Spencer & Christy's MSU analysis
> showed little or no warming. That's because the warming found in the NH
> was offset by the cooling seen in the SH and tropics. The latest version
> does, however, show a warming trend overall, especially for the mid and high
> latitudes of the NH. There are now 3 other sets of data derived from the
> MSU/AMSU instruments, all showing greater warming than the S & C result.
> It's really difficult to see Singer's repeated incorrect statement without
> concluding that he is either completely out of touch or lying.
These three new set were produced because the S&C's results did
not fit the theory. The new results do not fit the theory either, but they
can be manipulated by averaging over the NH and SH to seem to fit. As
Singer says, the first group make excuses why the data and the theory
do not fit. Now the excuse is that there will be more warming over
higher latitudes, but there are higher latitudes in both hemispheres!
But the second group, which includes Singer, are also mistaken. They
believe, but have no evidence whatsoever, that the theory over estimates
the consequences of anthropogenic greenhouse gasses. In fact the error
in the models means that they under estimate the consequences as I have
explained in the past.
Singer is also mistaken in believing that clouds will prevent the world
warming. We know that tropical clouds do not increase with temperature,
and that the world has been warming without the clouds protecting us.
But it is pointless me posting this. As Singer says there are two groups.
I don't belong to either, so I am not going to get support from anyone!
Cheers, Alastair.
Eric Swanson
Oh? When did you study the inner workings of the S & C TLT and compare it with
the other analytical efforts? Even S & C's TLT now shows a warming trend
greater than the estimated errors. Singer's statement is false.
>> It's true that the first few versions of Spencer & Christy's MSU analysis
>> showed little or no warming. That's because the warming found in the NH
>> was offset by the cooling seen in the SH and tropics. The latest version
>> does, however, show a warming trend overall, especially for the mid and high
>> latitudes of the NH. There are now 3 other sets of data derived from the
>> MSU/AMSU instruments, all showing greater warming than the S & C result.
>> It's really difficult to see Singer's repeated incorrect statement without
>> concluding that he is either completely out of touch or lying.
>
>These three new set were produced because the S&C's results did
>not fit the theory. The new results do not fit the theory either, but they
>can be manipulated by averaging over the NH and SH to seem to fit. As
>Singer says, the first group make excuses why the data and the theory
>do not fit. Now the excuse is that there will be more warming over
>higher latitudes, but there are higher latitudes in both hemispheres!
The data are not manipulated to fit some preconcieved notion. The MSU was
not intended as a measure of climate change and the data it spits out is
very noisy. Even looking at yearly data, the trends are hard to pickout,
given things like the volcanic eruptions of El Chichon and Pinatubo. And,
the internal variability, like the 1998 El Nino, add to the confusion.
The fact that the NH and the SH results from the TLT exhibit considerable
difference is an area of major interest. Do try to read the NAS report
to get a feel for the problems.
>But the second group, which includes Singer, are also mistaken. They
>believe, but have no evidence whatsoever, that the theory over estimates
>the consequences of anthropogenic greenhouse gasses. In fact the error
>in the models means that they under estimate the consequences as I have
>explained in the past.
>
>Singer is also mistaken in believing that clouds will prevent the world
>warming. We know that tropical clouds do not increase with temperature,
>and that the world has been warming without the clouds protecting us.
So Singer is wrong? Gee, how could that be, he has such a good resume.
>But it is pointless me posting this. As Singer says there are two groups.
>I don't belong to either, so I am not going to get support from anyone!
Uh, could be that's because you are wrong. Maybe you should take that
message to heart.
Alastair McDonald
> The data are not manipulated to fit some preconcieved notion. The MSU was
> not intended as a measure of climate change and the data it spits out is
> very noisy. Even looking at yearly data, the trends are hard to pickout,
> given things like the volcanic eruptions of El Chichon and Pinatubo. And,
> the internal variability, like the 1998 El Nino, add to the confusion.
If it is so noisy, how come it can be used to "prove" the troposphere is
following the surface?
> The fact that the NH and the SH results from the TLT exhibit considerable
> difference is an area of major interest. Do try to read the NAS report
> to get a feel for the problems.
"Major interest" is a good way of spinning the fact that it is not proven!
> >But the second group, which includes Singer, are also mistaken. They
> >believe, but have no evidence whatsoever, that the theory over estimates
> >the consequences of anthropogenic greenhouse gasses. In fact the error
> >in the models means that they under estimate the consequences as I have
> >explained in the past.
> >
> >Singer is also mistaken in believing that clouds will prevent the world
> >warming. We know that tropical clouds do not increase with temperature,
> >and that the world has been warming without the clouds protecting us.
>
> So Singer is wrong? Gee, how could that be, he has such a good resume.
So do the guys saying that the lower tropospheric temperatures match
the models. Or do they? I suspect the top guys are keeping pretty quiet.
> >But it is pointless me posting this. As Singer says there are two groups.
> >I don't belong to either, so I am not going to get support from anyone!
>
> Uh, could be that's because you are wrong. Maybe you should take that
> message to heart.
OTOH, perhaps you are wrong. Have you considered that?
Cheers, Alastair.
Eric Swanson
>
>"Eric Swanson" <swanson@nospam_on.net> wrote
>
>> The data are not manipulated to fit some preconcieved notion. The MSU was
>> not intended as a measure of climate change and the data it spits out is
>> very noisy. Even looking at yearly data, the trends are hard to pickout,
>> given things like the volcanic eruptions of El Chichon and Pinatubo. And,
>> the internal variability, like the 1998 El Nino, add to the confusion.
>
>If it is so noisy, how come it can be used to "prove" the troposphere is
>following the surface?
I'm not one who makes such a claim. The fact that the latest trends from
several groups are all positive, within some error bounds, does point
in that direction. Do try and read the NAS report, even though it's a
bit dated now.
>> The fact that the NH and the SH results from the TLT exhibit considerable
>> difference is an area of major interest. Do try to read the NAS report
>> to get a feel for the problems.
>
>"Major interest" is a good way of spinning the fact that it is not proven!
I'm not "spinning" anything. That there is still controversy about the MSU
is a fact. That fact has also a source of considerable effort amongst the
various experts in the area.
>> >But the second group, which includes Singer, are also mistaken. They
>> >believe, but have no evidence whatsoever, that the theory over estimates
>> >the consequences of anthropogenic greenhouse gasses. In fact the error
>> >in the models means that they under estimate the consequences as I have
>> >explained in the past.
>> >
>> >Singer is also mistaken in believing that clouds will prevent the world
>> >warming. We know that tropical clouds do not increase with temperature,
>> >and that the world has been warming without the clouds protecting us.
>>
>> So Singer is wrong? Gee, how could that be, he has such a good resume.
>
>So do the guys saying that the lower tropospheric temperatures match
>the models. Or do they? I suspect the top guys are keeping pretty quiet.
Do you mean top guys like Gee Dubyah? Or like Fred Singer? Or Patrick
Michaels? Or Stephen Schneider, etc?
>> >But it is pointless me posting this. As Singer says there are two groups.
>> >I don't belong to either, so I am not going to get support from anyone!
>>
>> Uh, could be that's because you are wrong. Maybe you should take that
>> message to heart.
>
>OTOH, perhaps you are wrong. Have you considered that?
Certainly. The more I learn, the less I know.
SwimJim
> As for the sonde data, consider this:
>
> J. K. Angell (2003), Effect of Exclusion of Anomalous Tropical Stations
> on Temperatur Trends from a 63-Station Radiosonde Network, and Comparison
> with Other Analyses, J. Climate 16, No. 13, pp. 2288-2295.
>
> " In the Tropics the exclusion of the 9 anomalous stations from the 63-
> station network for 1958-2000 results in a warming of the 300-100 mb layer
> rather than a cooling, a doubling of the warming of the 850-300 mb layer
> to a value of 0.13 K decade1, and a greater warming at 850-300 mb than
> at the surface. The global changes in trend are smaller, but include a
> change to the same warming of the surface and the 850-300 mb layer
> during 1958-2000. ........
Angell's data has always been a problem for the "little-or-no
tropospheric warming" crowd. I've been citing him for several years.
Jim Acker
------------------------------------
SwimJim
(formerly James G. Acker)
james...@eudoramail.com
The great tragedy of science -- the
slaying of a beautiful hypothesis
by an ugly fact. - Thomas Huxley
------------------------------------
charliew2
> swanson@nospam_on.net (Eric Swanson) wrote in message
> news:<c666mn$a9ns$1...@news3.infoave.net>...
>
>> As for the sonde data, consider this:
>>
>> J. K. Angell (2003), Effect of Exclusion of Anomalous Tropical
>> Stations on Temperatur Trends from a 63-Station Radiosonde
>> Network, and Comparison with Other Analyses, J. Climate 16, No.
>> 13, pp. 2288-2295.
>>
>> " In the Tropics the exclusion of the 9 anomalous stations from
>> the 63- station network for 1958-2000 results in a warming of the
>> 300-100 mb layer rather than a cooling, a doubling of the warming
>> of the 850-300 mb layer to a value of 0.13 K decade1, and a
>> greater warming at 850-300 mb than at the surface. The global
>> changes in trend are smaller, but include a change to the same
>> warming of the surface and the 850-300 mb layer during 1958-2000.
>> ........
>
> Angell's data has always been a problem for the "little-or-no
> tropospheric warming" crowd. I've been citing him for several years.
>
> Jim Acker
(cut of sig file)
Jim, why would Angell exclude 9 "anomalous" stations out of 63? I can see
one or two well explained outliers being excluded. Nine exclusions looks
like a deliberate attempt to cherry pick the data.
hanson
news:108fu5m...@corp.supernews.com...
> SwimJim wrote:
> > swanson@nospam_on.net (Eric Swanson) wrote in message
> > news:<c666mn$a9ns$1...@news3.infoave.net>...
> >
> >> As for the sonde data, consider this:
> >> J. K. Angell (2003), Effect of Exclusion of Anomalous Tropical
> >> Stations on Temperatur Trends from a 63-Station Radiosonde
> >> Network, and Comparison with Other Analyses, J. Climate 16, No.
> >> 13, pp. 2288-2295.
> >>
> >> " In the Tropics the exclusion of the 9 anomalous stations from
> >> the 63- station network for 1958-2000 results in a warming of the
> >> 300-100 mb layer rather than a cooling, a doubling of the warming
> >> of the 850-300 mb layer to a value of 0.13 K decade1, and a
> >> greater warming at 850-300 mb than at the surface. The global
> >> changes in trend are smaller, but include a change to the same
> >> warming of the surface and the 850-300 mb layer during 1958-2000.
> >> ........
> >
> > Angell's data has always been a problem for the "little-or-no
> > tropospheric warming" crowd. I've been citing him for several years.
> > Jim Acker
>
> Jim, why would Angell exclude 9 "anomalous" stations out of 63? I can see
> one or two well explained outliers being excluded. Nine exclusions looks
> like a deliberate attempt to cherry pick the data.
>
Charlie, why?......remember the aim and goal of the greenies.
If it can't be translated into $$$$$$$ for them, then it becomes
"anomalous". That's why!! It says so in their green bible.
Here are some details:
"A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no
scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect."
-- Richard Benedict, an employee for the State Department working
on assignment for the Conservation Foundation
"It doesn't matter what is true ... it only matters what people
believe is true ... You are what the media define you to be.
Greenpeace became a myth, and a myth-generating machine."
-- Paul Watson, co/founder of Greenpeace and Sea Shepard
"If you don't know an answer, a fact, a statistic, then .... make it
up on the spot ... for the mass-media today ... the truth is irrelevant."
-- Paul Watson in Earthforce: An Earth Warrior's Guide to Strategy.
"A lot of environmental messages are simply not accurate. But
that's the way we sell messages in this society. We use hype."
-- Dr. Jerry Franklin, Ecologist, Univ.of Washington
"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic
statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have.
Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being
effective and being honest."
- Stephen Schneider (Stanford professor who first sought fame as
a global cooler, but has now hit the big time as a global warmer)
David Ball
wrote:
>swanson@nospam_on.net (Eric Swanson) wrote in message news:<c666mn$a9ns$1...@news3.infoave.net>...
>
>> As for the sonde data, consider this:
>>
>> J. K. Angell (2003), Effect of Exclusion of Anomalous Tropical Stations
>> on Temperatur Trends from a 63-Station Radiosonde Network, and Comparison
>> with Other Analyses, J. Climate 16, No. 13, pp. 2288-2295.
>>
>> " In the Tropics the exclusion of the 9 anomalous stations from the 63-
>> station network for 1958-2000 results in a warming of the 300-100 mb layer
>> rather than a cooling, a doubling of the warming of the 850-300 mb layer
>> to a value of 0.13 K decade1, and a greater warming at 850-300 mb than
>> at the surface. The global changes in trend are smaller, but include a
>> change to the same warming of the surface and the 850-300 mb layer
>> during 1958-2000. ........
>
>Angell's data has always been a problem for the "little-or-no
>tropospheric warming" crowd. I've been citing him for several years.
>
This speaks volumes about the importance of robust analysis.
Outliers, and their impacts on the data, have to be carefully
considered. Sometimes, there is a tremendous amount of information in
them and they are the data you really want to look at, but sometimes
they're just bad data.
David Ball
wrote:
Robust analyses are an established part of data analysis. Such
techniques are not cherry-picking.
charliew2
That's very true. However, for a person who has a viewpoint that is
different than Angell's, you could give a practically equally valid argument
that the 9 highest temperature readings were outliers. In other words, if
there has been a problem with the 9 noted measurements, why wasn't this
realized before the measurements were compared with the other 54
measurements? Surely, a competent scientist would calibrate his
instrumentation in a way that would avoid "throwing out" 15% of the
measurements.
David Ball
wrote:
Why wasn't it realized that there were problems with Spenser &
Christy's early MSU analyses? Someone had to determine that there was
a problem, then figure out what to do about it. That's the way science
works. It's iterative.
Look at it another way, if you're pre-disposed to pick a
solution to a problem prior to analyzing it then you are only going to
see in those data what you want to see. Someone else comes along and
says that your analysis is flawed and shows you exactly where and
you're forced to agree, but you can't give your whole-hearted
endorsement to the facts so you play the minimization game, agreeing
but never wholeheartedly.
It's called situational awareness, the ability recognize the
problematic nature of a situation and act on the information in an
appropriate fashion. The analyist has access to the same set of data
you do, but he's developed a particular view of that data that does
not allow him to objectively evaluate all of the relevant information.
In the case above, sonde data are always problematic. I know.
I did them for a number of years. Sometimes you have a string of
successful flights other times they're not so hot. That's the nature
of working with real data. The person doing the analysis has to
evaluate the validity of the data at all times. You're speaking in
terms of calibration as if it is possible to somehow correct for bad
data. That isn't always the case. Sometimes, you have to throw the
data out. It happens regularly.
Alastair McDonald
"David Ball" <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:go2h80lpob953e07t...@4ax.com...
There wasn't a problem with S&C's early analysis. But it didn't give
the results the other scientists desired, so they set about searching
for problems with the data, instead of looking at the model. W. won't
contemplate that the models are wrong. Eric is trying to get out
of it by claiming some of the models must be right, by the law of
averages I presume!
> Someone had to determine that there was
> a problem, then figure out what to do about it. That's the way science
> works. It's iterative.
> Look at it another way, if you're pre-disposed to pick a
> solution to a problem prior to analyzing it then you are only going to
> see in those data what you want to see. Someone else comes along and
> says that your analysis is flawed and shows you exactly where and
> you're forced to agree, but you can't give your whole-hearted
> endorsement to the facts so you play the minimization game, agreeing
> but never wholeheartedly.
> It's called situational awareness, the ability recognize the
> problematic nature of a situation and act on the information in an
> appropriate fashion. The analyist has access to the same set of data
> you do, but he's developed a particular view of that data that does
> not allow him to objectively evaluate all of the relevant information.
> In the case above, sonde data are always problematic. I know.
> I did them for a number of years. Sometimes you have a string of
> successful flights other times they're not so hot. That's the nature
> of working with real data. The person doing the analysis has to
> evaluate the validity of the data at all times. You're speaking in
> terms of calibration as if it is possible to somehow correct for bad
> data. That isn't always the case. Sometimes, you have to throw the
> data out. It happens regularly.
LOLs Dave!
As well as your degree in meteorology, have you got one in
doublespeak too?
Well at least this post from you was entertaining. I never laughed
so loud for a long time!
Cheers, Alastair.
David Ball
Oh, for Christ's sake, Alastair, get a grip. There were myriad
problems with S&C's early analyses. Get your facts straight. Do you
have some minimal daily requirement of BS to post here? Behind in your
quota?
No, Troll, they're called facts. You should try using them
sometimes.
Alastair McDonald
> In article <c68fd5$oho$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>,
alas...@abmcdonald.leavethisout.freeserve.co.uk says...
> >If it is so noisy, how come it can be used to "prove" the troposphere is
> >following the surface?
>
> I'm not one who makes such a claim. The fact that the latest trends from
> several groups are all positive, within some error bounds, does point
> in that direction. Do try and read the NAS report, even though it's a
> bit dated now.
What is it going to tell me?
I have read the introduction and here is the final paragraph =>
This report reassesses the apparent differences between the temperature
changes recorded by satellites and the surface thermometer network on the
basis of the latest available information. It also offers an informed opinion
as to how the different temperature records should be interpreted, and
recommends actions designed to reduce the remaining uncertainties in these
measurements
To me that is an admission that there are differences. Their solution is to
reduce uncertainties in themeasurements. They do not consider checking their
models. A first year student would not get away with that, but because they
are all professors their is noone to correct them!
> I'm not "spinning" anything. That there is still controversy about the MSU
> is a fact. That fact has also [been] a source of considerable effort
amongst the
> various experts in the area.
I can't resist saying "Yes. Effort to prove that the tropsphere is warming!"
> >So do the guys saying that the lower tropospheric temperatures match
> >the models. Or do they? I suspect the top guys are keeping pretty quiet.
>
> Do you mean top guys like Gee Dubyah? Or like Fred Singer? Or Patrick
> Michaels? Or Stephen Schneider, etc?
LOLs! I was thinking of Hansen, Pierrehumbert, Alley, Cox, Broecker, and
Thorne (not sure if you have heard of him in which case I'll remove him from
my list of tops. That list is by no means exclusive, only a sample.)
> >OTOH, perhaps you are wrong. Have you considered that?
>
> Certainly. The more I learn, the less I know.
Well, for me the more I learn, the more I know, but also the more I
learn that I don't know, for instance about MSUs. I am loath to get in
there. I'll just wait for the experts to make up their minds. I am sure they
will eventually agree with me :-)
I am not saying that they are all liars. I am saying that they think the
temperatures of the lower troposphere (TLTs) are too low, so they
are looking for reasons that is true, and finding corrections as you
did. But no-one is looking for evidence that the TLTs are too high.
Nor are they looking to see if their models are wrong. Therefore
they are finding what the want to find. They are not devious, just
too enthusiastic about theur cause.
Cheers, Alastair.
Eric Swanson
>
>
>"Eric Swanson" <swanson@nospam_on.net> wrote in message
>news:c68igr$btac$1...@news3.infoave.net...
>> In article <c68fd5$oho$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>,
>alas...@abmcdonald.leavethisout.freeserve.co.uk says...
>
>> >If it is so noisy, how come it can be used to "prove" the troposphere is
>> >following the surface?
>>
>> I'm not one who makes such a claim. The fact that the latest trends from
>> several groups are all positive, within some error bounds, does point
>> in that direction. Do try and read the NAS report, even though it's a
>> bit dated now.
>
>What is it going to tell me?
>
>I have read the introduction and here is the final paragraph =>
>
>This report reassesses the apparent differences between the temperature
>changes recorded by satellites and the surface thermometer network on the
>basis of the latest available information. It also offers an informed opinion
>as to how the different temperature records should be interpreted, and
>recommends actions designed to reduce the remaining uncertainties in these
>measurements
>
>To me that is an admission that there are differences. Their solution is to
>reduce uncertainties in themeasurements. They do not consider checking their
>models. A first year student would not get away with that, but because they
>are all professors their is noone to correct them!
You obviously missed the point that there have been several sources of error
identified in the first MSU TLT products. Don't forget that S & C are now
on version 5 of their analysis. That's because the first 4 had problems.
When you contend that the first S & C analysis was correct, as you did in
another post in this thread, you are quite wrong.
>> I'm not "spinning" anything. That there is still controversy about the MSU
>> is a fact. That fact has also [been] a source of considerable effort
>> amongst the various experts in the area.
>
>I can't resist saying "Yes. Effort to prove that the tropsphere is warming!"
No, they are trying to discover the reason for the differences between the
various data sets. Some of these data sets were also derived from the MSU
measurements and these all exhibit a greater warming trend than that found
in the TLT product. To paraphrase Capt. Billy Clinton, it's not about
models, it's the data, stupid!
>> >So do the guys saying that the lower tropospheric temperatures match
>> >the models. Or do they? I suspect the top guys are keeping pretty quiet.
>>
>> Do you mean top guys like Gee Dubyah? Or like Fred Singer? Or Patrick
>> Michaels? Or Stephen Schneider, etc?
>
>LOLs! I was thinking of Hansen, Pierrehumbert, Alley, Cox, Broecker, and
>Thorne (not sure if you have heard of him in which case I'll remove him from
>my list of tops. That list is by no means exclusive, only a sample.)
>
>> >OTOH, perhaps you are wrong. Have you considered that?
>>
>> Certainly. The more I learn, the less I know.
>
>Well, for me the more I learn, the more I know, but also the more I
>learn that I don't know, for instance about MSUs. I am loath to get in
>there. I'll just wait for the experts to make up their minds. I am sure they
>will eventually agree with me :-)
As you add more and more new facts and read more reports, the newer stuff
tends to crowd the older stuff out of your brain.
>I am not saying that they are all liars. I am saying that they think the
>temperatures of the lower troposphere (TLTs) are too low, so they
>are looking for reasons that is true, and finding corrections as you
>did. But no-one is looking for evidence that the TLTs are too high.
>Nor are they looking to see if their models are wrong. Therefore
>they are finding what the want to find. They are not devious, just
>too enthusiastic about theur cause.
Please, Alastair, do take the time to study the science a bit!
The MSU does not measure temperature, in spite of what S & C repeatedly
claim. The instruments measure total microwave intensity, which is
related to the temperature of the atmosphere below which emits the
microwave energy. Most of the energy originates in the middle troposphere,
but some eminates from the surface and some from the stratosphere.
The TLT (for "Temperature, Lower Troposphere") is a derived product,
which was intended to correct for the stratospheric influence. The
correction algorithm is based on a model. If you are going to continue
to reject model results, why do you think you can get away with accepting
S & C's model?
Ian St. John
> In article <c6ava1$bi0$4...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>,
alas...@abmcdonald.leavethisout.freeserve.co.uk says...
> Please, Alastair, do take the time to study the science a bit!
> The MSU does not measure temperature, in spite of what S & C repeatedly
> claim. The instruments measure total microwave intensity, which is
> related to the temperature of the atmosphere below which emits the
> microwave energy.
And the number of oxygen molecules which change with humidity ( adding H20).
There was supposed to be a related humidity measurement to remove this
effect but it didn't do well enough.
SwimJim
Excerpted from the abstract:
"In this paper, nine tropical radiosonde stations in this network are
identified as anomalous based on unrepresentatively large
standard-error-of-regression values for 300–100-mb trends for the
period 1958–2000."
Excerpted from the paper:
"Accordingly, anomalous stations have been defined here as those
tropical stations in Fig. 2 whose two standard error of regression
values exceed 0.2 K decade−1, a choice based on the finding of a
gap in the statistical distribution of two standard errors of
regression at this round number."
That's why.
charliew2
Please Alastair! Do take the time to study the science a bit. The number
of oxygen molecules in the atmosphere will be unaffected by humidity. Their
concentration will change a small amount, and the total atmospheric oxygen
may get changed by other processes, but humidity will not have an influence.
charliew2
> period 1958-2000."
>
> Excerpted from the paper:
>
> "Accordingly, anomalous stations have been defined here as those
> tropical stations in Fig. 2 whose two standard error of regression
> values exceed 0.2 K decade−1, a choice based on the finding of a
> gap in the statistical distribution of two standard errors of
> regression at this round number."
>
> That's why.
>
(cut of sig file)
So, rather than do the "scientific thing", and investigate why such a large
percentage of stations had higher than expected statistical variability, the
data were just eliminated? How convenient.
charliew2
I'm very well versed in collection of real data. I will also state
something that may stir some debate - if I use any data collection technique
which causes me to throw out 15% of the data that I collect, I am likely to
do one of two things:
1) determine why I have such a large percentage of "bad" data and correct
the problem
2) use a different method which doesn't suffer from such a high error rate
I'm not going to argue for or against the conclusions of the data analysis.
I contend that there may be something wrong with a data collection technique
which seems "sloppy".
Ian St. John
> Ian St. John wrote:
> > "Eric Swanson" <swanson@nospam_on.net> wrote in message
> > news:c6b3fq$eml3$1...@news3.infoave.net...
> >> In article <c6ava1$bi0$4...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> > alas...@abmcdonald.leavethisout.freeserve.co.uk says...
> > <snip>
> >> Please, Alastair, do take the time to study the science a bit!
> >> The MSU does not measure temperature, in spite of what S & C
> >> repeatedly claim. The instruments measure total microwave intensity,
> >> which is related to the temperature of the atmosphere below which
> >> emits the microwave energy.
> >
> > And the number of oxygen molecules which change with humidity (
> > adding H20). There was supposed to be a related humidity measurement
> > to remove this effect but it didn't do well enough.
>
> Please Alastair!
Who?
> Do take the time to study the science a bit.
I have.
> The number
> of oxygen molecules in the atmosphere will be unaffected by humidity.
False. Both the dry atmosphere and water vapor have different levels of
oxygen atoms. Mixing them will change the ratios of atoms.
> Their
> concentration will change a small amount, and the total atmospheric oxygen
> may get changed by other processes, but humidity will not have an
influence.
But it does. It is one of the reasons that they included a remote
measurement of humidity in the satellite and had to revise this to
complicated data processing.
http://daac.gsfc.nasa.gov/guides/GSFC/guide/limb93_dataset.gd.html
"MSU channel 1 (50.3 GHz) has only weak oxygen absorption and therefore is
sensitive to air temperature in only the lowest few kilometers of the
atmosphere. However, this temperature information is heavily contaminated by
other influences such as surface temperature and emissivity, as well as
water vapor, liquid water and precipitation-size ice hydro-meteors in the
troposphere. This limits the utility of channel 1 for monitoring lower
tropospheric temperatures. MSU channel 2 (53.74 GHz) is sensitive to deep
layer average tropospheric temperatures with a weighting function peaking
near 500 hPa. It is very slightly affected by variations in tropospheric
humidity (Spencer et al., 1990), but is contaminated by precipitation-size
ice in deep convective clouds, which can cause Tb depressions of up to 15
degrees C in mid-latitude squall lines. High elevation terrain protruding
into the MSU channel 2 weighting function results in proportionally less of
its measured radiation coming from thermal emission by the air and more
coming from the surface. The MSU channel 3 (54.96 GHz) weighting function
peaks near 250 hPa and so often straddles the extra-tropical tropopause, but
lies mostly within the tropical upper tropospheric. MSU channel 4 (57.95
GHz) has its peak weighting at 70 hPa and provides a good measure of lower
stratospheric deep-layer temperatures."
Note: I believe that they use Channel 2 in the current analysis.
Ian St. John
<snip>
> (cut of sig file)
>
> So, rather than do the "scientific thing", and investigate why such a
large
> percentage of stations had higher than expected statistical variability,
the
> data were just eliminated? How convenient.
Yes. Despiking is a standard tool of data processing. If I am measuring, for
example, the height of an airplane with a laser profilometer, and have a
stream of data showing 30.7 meters or so, but with an occasional blip to 10
meters, my tendency is not to tell the pilot to pour on engine power and
climb out thinking that I'm twenty meters too low.
And it really doesn't matter if the ten meter reading is cause by an
electronic glitch, dirt on the window, or an occasional tree in an otherwise
flat plane. The altitude 'research' is just fine using the majority of the
data, and there is really no need to focus on the glitches or explain them
in detail to validate the altitude.
Eric Swanson
>
>David Ball wrote:
>> "charliew2" <char...@ev1.net>
>>> David Ball wrote:
>>>> james...@eudoramail.com (SwimJim)
>>>>> swanson@nospam_on.net (Eric Swanson) wrote
When you make your measurements, do you use a new (iw, different) thermistor
and electronics every time, twice a day for 40 years? Do you switch
manufacturers in the middle of the data set or update to a new and improved
model of instrument occasionally? Do you switch from one measurement a day to
two taken 12 hours apart? Are your balloons filled with the exact same quantity
of gas each time? Are all your balloons from the same source and are they all
identical? How many new technicians do you employ and train over a 40 year
period to launch the balloons? How many missing days are in the time series?
Christy and Norris just published a paper in the GRL using sonde data for the
Southern Hemisphere. They began with all the stations available from 1979 thru
July 2001 (271 days), finding more than 300. They selected two subsets, the
first with data for 60% of the days and the second with 75% of the days
reporting. The first set had 89 stations and the second subset had only 72
stations. Do you call that "cherry picking" or "sloppy" too?
charliew2
> "charliew2" <char...@ev1.net> wrote in message
> news:108ilcm...@corp.supernews.com...
>> Ian St. John wrote:
>>> "Eric Swanson" <swanson@nospam_on.net> wrote in message
>>> news:c6b3fq$eml3$1...@news3.infoave.net...
>>>> In article <c6ava1$bi0$4...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>,
>>> alas...@abmcdonald.leavethisout.freeserve.co.uk says...
>>> <snip>
>>>> Please, Alastair, do take the time to study the science a bit!
>>>> The MSU does not measure temperature, in spite of what S & C
>>>> repeatedly claim. The instruments measure total microwave
>>>> intensity, which is related to the temperature of the atmosphere
>>>> below which emits the microwave energy.
>>>
>>> And the number of oxygen molecules which change with humidity (
>>> adding H20). There was supposed to be a related humidity measurement
>>> to remove this effect but it didn't do well enough.
>>
>> Please Alastair!
>
> Who?
Oops! I didn't properly count the number of ">" symbols.
>
>> Do take the time to study the science a bit.
>
> I have.
>
>> The number
>> of oxygen molecules in the atmosphere will be unaffected by humidity.
>
> False. Both the dry atmosphere and water vapor have different levels
> of oxygen atoms. Mixing them will change the ratios of atoms.
(cut)
Re-read my statement. The number of oxygen atoms WILL NOT change with
humidity. The concentration of those atoms WILL change with humidity. If
you weren't so quick to take an opposing viewpoint, you could have avoided
some unnecessary typing.
charliew2
Eric,
I'm very familiar with highly multi-variable problems, so I don't need a
lecture. The point - if "global warming" decisions are going to be
partially based on any given data collection technique, that technique
should be recognized as being very good. If the technology doesn't exist to
give "reproducible" results, it's time to improve that technology.
Drawing conclusions from data sets where substantial portions of the data
are thrown out, definitely does not give me a "warm and fuzzy" feeling.
>
> Christy and Norris just published a paper in the GRL using sonde data
> for the Southern Hemisphere. They began with all the stations
> available from 1979 thru July 2001 (271 days), finding more than 300.
> They selected two subsets, the first with data for 60% of the days
> and the second with 75% of the days reporting. The first set had 89
> stations and the second subset had only 72 stations. Do you call
> that "cherry picking" or "sloppy" too?
I don't have enough information to answer. For "data for 60% of the days",
do you mean that they threw out 40% of the data collected? If so, then yes,
I would find that to be "sloppy".
Ian St. John
Your claim baffles me. Both the conentration and the number of atoms will
change. Humid air is less dense as a simple point, since water vapor weights
less than a 79% nitrogen, 21% oxygen mixture. And the amount of oxygen per
unit of atmospheric weight changes since oxygen is by far the majority of
the mass of water vapor. You also snipped the references that provide
confirmation that this does affect MSU reading.
charliew2
OK. I "get it" now. Your instrument is measuring atomic oxygen, not
molecular species. The number of oxygen molecules in the atmosphere will
remain the same, but the number of oxygen atoms will change because water
contains oxygen atoms.
Eric Swanson
In this case, there is little choice, since the data can only be taken at a
point in time. If you don't catch the measurement as time goes by, then
there's no way to go back and do it again. As for "reproducible" results,
well, again, you can't go back and re-measure the variables. You appear
to be thinking of measurements in a closed system, where you can re-start
the thing and look at the gauges again the second time around.
>> Christy and Norris just published a paper in the GRL using sonde data
>> for the Southern Hemisphere. They began with all the stations
>> available from 1979 thru July 2001 (271 days), finding more than 300.
>> They selected two subsets, the first with data for 60% of the days
>> and the second with 75% of the days reporting. The first set had 89
>> stations and the second subset had only 72 stations. Do you call
>> that "cherry picking" or "sloppy" too?
>
>I don't have enough information to answer. For "data for 60% of the days",
>do you mean that they threw out 40% of the data collected? If so, then yes,
>I would find that to be "sloppy".
My typing was a bit off. It should have been 271 MONTHS, of which 60% or 75%
of the months had to pass their test. The point is, that's the best data
available, according to them. The 60% test excludes data from more than 210
of the stations, or more than 70% of the stations. That's for only 22 1/2
years too, not the 42 years of data that Angell analyzed. The sonde data
was intended for short term weather forcasting, not long term climate analysis.
The sondes provide the only real upper air measurements and we are stuck with
it, so that's what gets used (other than the MSU sounders, which do not give
point measurements).
The problem is, a new measurement technique may not be compatible with the
older time series data, so one would need to sit around for 25 more years
before enough data could be collected to make a decision. We may not have
the luxury of waiting that long.
Ian St. John
> Ian St. John wrote:
<snip>
> > Your claim baffles me. Both the conentration and the number of atoms
> > will change. Humid air is less dense as a simple point, since water
> > vapor weights less than a 79% nitrogen, 21% oxygen mixture. And the
> > amount of oxygen per unit of atmospheric weight changes since oxygen
> > is by far the majority of the mass of water vapor. You also snipped
> > the references that provide confirmation that this does affect MSU
> > reading.
>
> OK. I "get it" now. Your instrument is measuring atomic oxygen, not
> molecular species. The number of oxygen molecules in the atmosphere will
> remain the same, but the number of oxygen atoms will change because water
> contains oxygen atoms.
Yes. Exactly my point. It measures the microwave emissions from oxygen atoms
which is dependent on both the number of atoms and their temperature. The
upper atmosphere is fairly stable in humidity and you take an average of a
very wide ( in height ) swath with the analysis, but the moisture levels can
have an effect. There was an instrument to try to measure surface water
vapor levels, since this was a goal of the instrument, but it apparently was
not a success as I have never heard of it being used to correct measurements
and there was never an attempt ( published ) to derive surface measurements.
David Ball
wrote:
>
>I'm very well versed in collection of real data. I will also state
>something that may stir some debate - if I use any data collection technique
>which causes me to throw out 15% of the data that I collect, I am likely to
>do one of two things:
>
>1) determine why I have such a large percentage of "bad" data and correct
>the problem
And how exactly did you determine that the data were
problematic? The first thing you had to do was suspect that there was
a problem in the first place.
>2) use a different method which doesn't suffer from such a high error rate
I think Eric has more than adequately addressed this
particular point.
>
>I'm not going to argue for or against the conclusions of the data analysis.
>I contend that there may be something wrong with a data collection technique
>which seems "sloppy".
>
See Eric's excellent post.
David Ball
wrote:
What an assinine comment. Have you ever done a bloody upper
air flight? Until you have, I suggest you stop posturing and ask a
question or two.
charliew2
> In article <108irg2...@corp.supernews.com>, char...@ev1.net
> says...
>>
>> Eric Swanson wrote:
No. I appear to be thinking about protective instrumentation systems in a
refinery, where you only get ONE chance to get it right. If you don't
recognize a big problem in these systems, something blows up, and people are
likely to get killed. These systems use two out of three voting on their
measurements. If there is one bad reading from the three measurements, it
is thrown out. Obviously, this greatly increases the chance of getting good
data, and it also tells you which instrument is malfunctioning.
This argument can always be given. Obviously, we've had 150+ years of the
industrial revolution to worry about it. Another 25 years is going to make
all the difference?
Eric Swanson
>
>Eric Swanson wrote:
>> In article <108irg2...@corp.supernews.com>, char...@ev1.net
>> says...
>>>
>>> Eric Swanson wrote:
>(cut)
>>>>
>>>> When you make your measurements, do you use a new (iw, different)
>>>> thermistor and electronics every time, twice a day for 40 years? Do
>>>> you switch manufacturers in the middle of the data set or update to
>>>> a new and improved model of instrument occasionally? Do you switch
>>>> from one measurement a day to two taken 12 hours apart? Are your
>>>> balloons filled with the exact same quantity of gas each time? Are
>>>> all your balloons from the same source and are they all identical?
>>>> How many new technicians do you employ and train over a 40 year
>>>> period to launch the balloons? How many missing days are in the
>>>> time series?
>>> I'm very familiar with highly multi-variable problems, so I don't
>>> need a lecture. The point - if "global warming" decisions are going
>>> to be partially based on any given data collection technique, that
>>> technique should be recognized as being very good. If the
>>> technology doesn't exist to give "reproducible" results, it's time
>>> to improve that technology.
>>> Drawing conclusions from data sets where substantial portions of the
>>> data are thrown out, definitely does not give me a "warm and fuzzy"
>>> feeling.
>>
>> In this case, there is little choice, since the data can only be
>> taken at a point in time. If you don't catch the measurement as time
>> goes by, then there's no way to go back and do it again. As for
>> "reproducible" results, well, again, you can't go back and re-measure
>> the variables. You appear
>> to be thinking of measurements in a closed system, where you can
>> re-start the thing and look at the gauges again the second time around.
>>
>
>No. I appear to be thinking about protective instrumentation systems in a
>refinery, where you only get ONE chance to get it right. If you don't
>recognize a big problem in these systems, something blows up, and people are
>likely to get killed. These systems use two out of three voting on their
>measurements. If there is one bad reading from the three measurements, it
>is thrown out. Obviously, this greatly increases the chance of getting good
>data, and it also tells you which instrument is malfunctioning.
I thought so. A refinery is a closed system, an artifical, small, manmade
device. As such, it's relatively easy to put a sensor in there and make
a measurement. Or, program a computer to make the measurements for you.
You don't need to sit around and look at a gauge every 5 minutes any more.
You really need to learn to think "outside the pipe" to understand the
difference between collecting data from hundreds of locations around
the Earth and taking measurements in an industrial plant or lab.
I don't intend to belittle the importance of proper measurements inside
the pipe, it's just that there is a world of difference between your
system and the real world of geophysical data. I think you also need
a better sense of history. The sonde data goes back more than 50 years
and the temperature data goes back more than 150. But the quality of
the older stuff isn't up to the capabilities one has grown to expect in
recent times.
Look at it this way:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=6783&item=2474569884
charliew2
Your assumptions regarding the simplicity of a refinery are unfounded.
There are literally tens of thousands of measurements made in a refinery, on
a continuous basis. In addition, a refinery is not the closed system that
you seem to think. There are continuous material and energy inputs and
outputs involved in normal refinery operation.
You are also missing my main point. The measurements you are talking about
are being used to help justify what action should be taken regarding global
warming. Some of the recommended action will strongly affect world
economies. Your excuses that the data are difficult to gather rings hollow
when there are demonstrated methods to measureably increase the integrity of
data. Rather than label my comments as "simple minded", it would be much
better to think about whether or not your sonde data integrity can be
improved.
>
> I don't intend to belittle the importance of proper measurements
> inside the pipe, it's just that there is a world of difference
> between your system and the real world of geophysical data. I think
> you also need
> a better sense of history. The sonde data goes back more than 50
> years and the temperature data goes back more than 150. But the
> quality of
> the older stuff isn't up to the capabilities one has grown to expect
> in recent times.
>
> Look at it this way:
>
>
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=6783&item=
2474569884
If there weren't calls for immediate action regarding global warming, based
partly on "older" temperature data and on "difficult to get" sonde data, I
wouldn't see that much of a problem. However, I maintain that it is
important to get proper measurements "outside the pipe" as well, because
those measurements may well have a big impact on public policy and world
economies.
Eric Swanson
As things go, I'm sure that a refinery is a complex man made system. I didn't
write otherwise. Sure, there are inputs and outputs, but, in between,
things happen inside closed spaces. For better or worse, you have complete
control over what happens, even if it's unexpected. If you screw up, the
impacts are short term and (hopefully) local. In the real world of the Earth,
mankind does not possess the luxury of screwing things up in a big way and
then ignoring the impacts.
>You are also missing my main point. The measurements you are talking about
>are being used to help justify what action should be taken regarding global
>warming. Some of the recommended action will strongly affect world
>economies. Your excuses that the data are difficult to gather rings hollow
>when there are demonstrated methods to measureably increase the integrity of
>data. Rather than label my comments as "simple minded", it would be much
>better to think about whether or not your sonde data integrity can be
>improved.
Where did I write "simple minded"? Of course, if there were perfectly accurate
and complete historical data to study, there would no longer be a debate about
climate change. But, if we had perfect data about the size of the recoverable
oil reserves, there wouldn't be a future's market, either. Your complaint boils
down to saying we don't know enough, so it's OK to ignore the possibility of
serious negative impacts from mankind's activities
BTW, it's not MY sonde data, although I've looked at a small portion of it.
I hope you understand by now that Spencer & Christy's MSU satellite data
analysis was an attempt to improve on the existing data. I've offered a
slightly different approach, but there is no way to tell whether it will
get done. Perhaps you have some scheme to measure the Earth's temperature,
like the analysis of GPS satellite data. If so, I'm sure you could find a
way to get it tried out to see what happens.
>> I don't intend to belittle the importance of proper measurements
>> inside the pipe, it's just that there is a world of difference
>> between your system and the real world of geophysical data. I think
>> you also need
>> a better sense of history. The sonde data goes back more than 50
>> years and the temperature data goes back more than 150. But the
>> quality of
>> the older stuff isn't up to the capabilities one has grown to expect
>> in recent times.
>If there weren't calls for immediate action regarding global warming, based
>partly on "older" temperature data and on "difficult to get" sonde data, I
>wouldn't see that much of a problem. However, I maintain that it is
>important to get proper measurements "outside the pipe" as well, because
>those measurements may well have a big impact on public policy and world
>economies.
Obtaining "proper" data is extremely difficult and expensive, especially in
the area of oceanography and orbiting instruments. Even the best that's
available today may not be good enough. Are you going to argue that the
risks are less than the benefits? If so, how do you calculate the risks
without some analysis or data which projects the future? So far, all you
seem to be saying is "What, me worry?"
Enough Already
> Insight on the News - Features
> Issue: 4/27/04
>
>
> Picture Profile
> Singer Cool on Global Warming
> By Stephen Goode
>
> Fred Singer established the Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) in
> 1990 after becoming fed up with what he calls "the distorted science"
> surrounding the question of atmospheric ozone depletion. Singer is a
> scientist. His undergraduate degree is in electrical engineering and he has
> a doctorate in physics from Princeton University. He has spent a lifetime in
> scientific research and development. So it is not surprising that bad
> science gets Singer excited and arouses his concern.
"Bad science" in Singer's case means anything that questions the
perpetual growth machine. This guy has been exposed as a propagandist
many times. Why not quote people who are truly objective on the issue?
Nobody without an agenda looks at melting ice packs, rising
temperature extremes, turbulent weather, etc., and concludes that we
have little to worry about.
E.A.
http://enough_already.tripod.com/
If any other species behaved like Man we'd call it a plague.
Thomas Palm
news:108l2sd...@corp.supernews.com:
> Eric Swanson wrote:
> You are also missing my main point. The measurements you are talking
> about are being used to help justify what action should be taken
> regarding global warming. Some of the recommended action will
> strongly affect world economies. Your excuses that the data are
> difficult to gather rings hollow when there are demonstrated methods
> to measureably increase the integrity of data.
At least you don't risk getting shot when you collect measurements from
your refinery. You do trying to collect meteorological data in some parts
of the world. Just to mention one factor that complicates collecting sonde
data.
> If there weren't calls for immediate action regarding global warming,
> based partly on "older" temperature data and on "difficult to get"
> sonde data, I wouldn't see that much of a problem. However, I
> maintain that it is important to get proper measurements "outside the
> pipe" as well, because those measurements may well have a big impact
> on public policy and world economies.
It certainly is important to get better data, but unfortunately it is hard
to get funding for that, and in any case this will not help with the
historical data we already have.
James
"Enough Already" <enough_...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:a20f7b76.04042...@posting.google.com...
And everybody with an agenda will look at the same thing and determine we
are doomed. It's akin to a robed idiot in sandals and long beard carrying a
sign saying "the end is near" when he has only a few obscure and irrelevant
facts.
hanson
> "Enough Already" <enough_...@lycos.com> wrote in message
> news:a20f7b76.04042...@posting.google.com...
> > "James" <jra...@dcr.net> wrote in message
> news:<6rwhc.32644$pk5....@fe03.usenetserver.com>...
> > > Picture Profile -- Singer Cool on Global Warming
> > > By Stephen Goode
> > > Fred Singer established the Science & Environmental Policy Project
> > > (SEPP) in
> > > 1990 after becoming fed up with what he calls "the distorted science"
> > > surrounding the question of atmospheric ozone depletion. Singer is a
> > > scientist. His undergraduate degree is in electrical engineering and he
> > > has a doctorate in physics from Princeton University.
> > > He has spent a lifetime in scientific research and development.
> > > So it is not surprising that bad
> > > science gets Singer excited and arouses his concern.
> >
> > "Bad science" in Singer's case means anything that questions the
> > perpetual growth machine. This guy has been exposed as a propagandist
> > many times. Why not quote people who are truly objective on the issue?
> > Nobody without an agenda looks at melting ice packs, rising
> > temperature extremes, turbulent weather, etc., and concludes that we
> > have little to worry about.
> >
> And everybody with an agenda will look at the same thing and determine we
> are doomed. It's akin to a robed idiot in sandals and long beard carrying a
> sign saying "the end is near" when he has only a few obscure and irrelevant
> facts.
>
I think EA needs to study the green bible........ahahaha...
But thanks to other needy greenies like VD Scotty and Phil
I have posted it already several times today......
ahahaha......ahahanson
Ian St. John
>
> "Enough Already" <enough_...@lycos.com> wrote in message
> news:a20f7b76.04042...@posting.google.com...
> And everybody with an agenda will look at the same thing and determine we
> are doomed. It's akin to a robed idiot in sandals and long beard carrying
a
> irrelevant facts.
Singer as an robed idiot? I like it! It is so appropriate, him being clearly
a political flunky with an agenda that ignores the facts and figures of the
science guys.
Enough Already
> > "Bad science" in Singer's case means anything that questions the
> > perpetual growth machine. This guy has been exposed as a propagandist
> > many times. Why not quote people who are truly objective on the issue?
> >
> > Nobody without an agenda looks at melting ice packs, rising
> > temperature extremes, turbulent weather, etc., and concludes that we
> > have little to worry about.
> >
>
> And everybody with an agenda will look at the same thing and determine we
> are doomed. It's akin to a robed idiot in sandals and long beard carrying a
> sign saying "the end is near" when he has only a few obscure and irrelevant
> facts.
We already know that you consider most of Man's widely documented
negative impact on nature to be trivial or irrelevant. Your values
mean little in the context of environmental quality.
In an earlier post I pointed out all the visible and measurable damage
Man has already done to the land and water, and that it's quite
probable we could harm the climate also. Your thoughtful response was
"All the things you mentioned are superficial."
In short, you don't respect nature and probably never have. Why even
post in a forum that assumes some degree of humility toward the land,
water and atmosphere that keeps us alive? I don't understand how
people get so detached from the land and so attached to money and
consumption.
All you "conserv"atives care about is hoarding more dollars and
promoting more overpopulation for the sake of "economic growth." To
what ultimate end, I can't figure out. You are still stuck on the idea
that finite doesn't really mean finite, and aesthetics don't even
enter into your calculations.
Enough Already
> > And everybody with an agenda will look at the same thing and determine we
> > are doomed. It's akin to a robed idiot in sandals and long beard carrying a
> > sign saying "the end is near" when he has only a few obscure and irrelevant
> > facts.
> >
> Ahahahahaha......ahahahaha.....not bad, James, not bad.
> I think EA needs to study the green bible........ahahaha...
> But thanks to other needy greenies like VD Scotty and Phil
> I have posted it already several times today......
> ahahaha......ahahanson
Are you by any chance Jay Hanson (who "retired" from Usenet), back
again, posting as a moron to make anti-environmentalists look even
stupider? All those "ahahahaha's" make me wonder. I can see how Mr.
Hanson might have gone nuts hoping that modern "conserv"atives would
actually come around to conservation.
hanson
news:a20f7b76.04042...@posting.google.com...
> > > > rising temperature extremes, turbulent weather, etc.,
> > > > and concludes that we have little to worry about.
> >
> > > are doomed. It's akin to a robed idiot in sandals and long beard carrying
> > > a sign saying "the end is near" when he has only a few obscure and
> > > irrelevant facts.
> > >
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:<iISic.11759$e4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> > Ahahahahaha......ahahahaha.....not bad, James, not bad.
> > I think EA needs to study the green bible........ahahaha...
> > But thanks to other needy greenies like VD Scotty and Phil
> > I have posted it already several times today......
> > ahahaha......ahahanson
>
> Are you by any chance Jay Hanson (who "retired" from Usenet), back
> again, posting as a moron to make anti-environmentalists look even
> stupider? All those "ahahahaha's" make me wonder. I can see how Mr.
> Hanson might have gone nuts hoping that modern "conserv"atives would
> actually come around to conservation.
> E.A.
[hanson]
If you really believe in what you say re: a plague, then you
should set an example and exterminate yourself. You know
the goose/gander thing.....but, let me first administer to you
and present the green bible to you so that you can make the
proper decision. Consider, EA, green turdism causes extreme
depression and suicidal notions as we have seen in the tragic
case of Tooker Gomberg.
"Tooker Gomberg's Earth Day Message" on 04-25-04
news:3bun80po7e4jq8gtj...@4ax.com
So, HERE COME THE GREEN BIBLE, for your exclusive benefit:
***** Quotes from environmental leaders. start: *****
"It doesn't matter what is true ... it only matters what people
believe is true ... You are what the media define you to be.
Greenpeace became a myth, and a myth-generating machine."
-- Paul Watson, co/founder of Greenpeace and Sea Shepard
"If you don't know an answer, a fact, a statistic, then .... make it
up on the spot ... for the mass-media today ... the truth is irrelevant."
-- Paul Watson in Earthforce: An Earth Warrior's Guide to Strategy.
"A lot of environmental messages are simply not accurate. But
that's the way we sell messages in this society. We use hype."
-- Dr. Jerry Franklin, Ecologist, Univ.of Washington
"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic
statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have.
Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being
effective and being honest."
- Stephen Schneider (Stanford professor who first sought fame as
a global cooler, but has now hit the big time as a global warmer)
"A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no
scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect."
-- Richard Benedict, an employee for the State Department working
on assignment for the Conservation Foundation
"We already have too much economic growth in the United States.
Economic growth in rich countries like ours is the disease, not the cure."
-- Paul Elrich, Stanford U biologist and Advisor to Vice President Gore
"We in the Green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which
the killing of a forest will be considered more contemptible and more
criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian brothels."
-- Carl Amery, Green Party of West Germany
"I got the impression that instead of going out to shoot birds,
I should go out and shoot the kids who shoot birds."
-- Paul Watson, founder of Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd
-----***** end: Quotes from environmental leaders *****-----
***** These quotes do make you realize that *****
= The green movement was always & only a sick machination=
= & a cover to get $$$ grants, permit charges & user fees to =
= feed green shits, be they politicians, consultants, activists or=
= regulators. Environmentalism is just a despicable evil green=
= $$$$$$ game without any redeeming value, nor any intent =
= to save anything. This 40 year old scam is now threatened =
= which is why all those leeching green turds are whining =
People are so disgusted with green turdism, so much that
== "Environment" was not mentioned at all in Pres. Bush's ==
== 2004 State of the Union, and NEITHER was any mention ==
== of it in the rebuttals by the DEMOCRATS. & now, RALPH ==
== NADER, 2000 Green Party Pres. Candidate has distanced ==
== himself from the green shits and runs as an Independent!==
All enviros, activists, enablers, consultants or regulators may
bark in their green misanthropic and anti-patriotic hatred until
they are biliverdin-green all over, but
**** These enviro-creationist quotes will not go away. ****
The enviros should revere these quotes for they are their gospel.
Don't deny them. Be proud of them. They are, after all, the
Green equivalent of the Red manifesto or Hitler's "Mein Kampf".
The enviros green ilk's strenuous and pathetic efforts to burry them,
is reminiscent of the Nazis who claimed not to have known how evil
their leaders and their systems were and copping the same plea
of "just following orders".
Environmentalism is the same ideology. Environmentalism is just
the revived green version of social pathologies like BROWN with red
and green or RED with brown and green tints.
Face the facts green turds, nowadays the enviros do have problems,
a) because the people caught onto their game of green turdism, that
= Environmentalism is just a despicable, evil money (green) game, =
= without any redeeming value, nor any intent to save anything.This =
= scam has come to an end. Now, all the green shits are whining... =
Why should anyone be surprised? The green movement was always
and exclusively a machination and a cover to get grants, permit charges
& user fees for the green shits, be they consultants, activists or regulators.
...to boot, the green shits are recognized to be so bad and evil that
== One of the saddest legacy that the green turds produced ==
== is the pervasive trickle down effect aka OUTSOURCING ==
b) because it was doomed from the outset by top "executive" advice
from its Führers as shown above in "Quotes from environmental leaders".
Environmental turdism runs across and far, far beyond political and
ideological party lines. The right wing, conservatives, have an equal
if not bigger number of green turds amongst them, then the lefties do.
Turdism/Turdry begins when principally noble ideas are exploited for
personal gain. The perversion of the noble goals begins as soon as
the old adage to riches is introduced and applied:
********* "Find a need and fill it" *********
Modern, current turdism is so vile because the bastards, the green
shits expanded it successfully into
********* "Create a fear and feed off it". *********
Remember,
you can strike fear into some people for all the time.
you can even strike fear into all people for some time.
But you cannot strike fear into all people for all the time.
-------- Your green shit philosophy has failed --------
The green jig is up! Do you green turds know now why?
ahahahahaha........ahahahahanson
James
"Enough Already" <enough_...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:a20f7b76.04042...@posting.google.com...
I vaguely remember that and the minutiae you kept mentioning was trivial and
easily correctable.
>
> All you "conserv"atives care about is hoarding more dollars and
> promoting more overpopulation for the sake of "economic growth." To
> what ultimate end, I can't figure out. You are still stuck on the idea
> that finite doesn't really mean finite, and aesthetics don't even
> enter into your calculations.
I had a feeling that was coming. We're all greedy captalists with no respect
for anything but money huh? I suggest you stop crying over every single tree
and look at the bigger picture with some kind of compromise with the mean
old industries. If you don't then don't expect much change.